Promoting Physical Activity With the Out of School Nutrition and Physical Activity (OSNAP) Initiative: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial | Lifestyle Behaviors | JAMA Pediatrics | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.207.129.82. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee.  Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report, 2008. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2008.
2.
Troiano  RP, Berrigan  D, Dodd  KW, Mâsse  LC, Tilert  T, McDowell  M.  Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(1):181-188.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report Subcommittee of the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports & Nutrition.  Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report: Strategies to Increase Physical Activity Among Youth. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2012.
4.
Atkin  AJ, Gorely  T, Biddle  SJ, Cavill  N, Foster  C.  Interventions to promote physical activity in young people conducted in the hours immediately after school.  Int J Behav Med. 2011;18(3):176-187.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Beets  MW, Beighle  A, Erwin  HE, Huberty  JL.  After-school program impact on physical activity and fitness: a meta-analysis.  Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(6):527-537.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Pate  RR, O’Neill  JR.  After-school interventions to increase physical activity among youth.  Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(1):14-18.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Jago  R, Sebire  SJ, Davies  B,  et al.  Randomised feasibility trial of a teaching assistant led extracurricular physical activity intervention for 9 to 11 year olds.  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:114.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Wiecha  JL, Hall  G, Gannett  E, Roth  B.  Development of healthy eating and physical activity quality standards for out-of-school time programs.  Child Obes. 2012;8(6):572-576.PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Afterschool Alliance.  America After 3PM: Afterschool Programs in Demand. Washington, DC: Afterschool Alliance; 2014.
10.
Madsen  K, Thompson  H, Adkins  A, Crawford  Y.  School-community partnerships: a cluster-randomized trial of an after-school soccer program.  JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(4):321-326.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Jago  R, Baranowski  T, Baranowski  JC,  et al.  Fit for Life Boy Scout badge: outcome evaluation of a troop and Internet intervention.  Prev Med. 2006;42(3):181-187.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Beets  MW, Weaver  RG, Turner-McGrievy  G,  et al.  Making policy practice in afterschool programs: a randomized controlled trial on physical activity changes.  Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(6):694-706.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Jago  R, Jonker  ML, Missaghian  M, Baranowski  T.  Effect of 4 weeks of Pilates on the body composition of young girls.  Prev Med. 2006;42(3):177-180.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Gortmaker  SL, Lee  RM, Mozaffarian  RS,  et al.  Effect of an after-school intervention on increases in children’s physical activity.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44(3):450-457.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Giles  CM, Kenney  EL, Gortmaker  SL,  et al.  Increasing water availability during afterschool snack: evidence, strategies, and partnerships from a group randomized trial.  Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(3)(suppl 2):S136-S142.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Kenney  EL, Giles  CM, deBlois  ME, Gortmaker  SL, Chinfatt  S, Cradock  AL.  Improving nutrition and physical activity policies in afterschool programs: results from a group-randomized controlled trial.  Prev Med. 2014;66:159-166.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Stokols  D, Allen  J, Bellingham  RL.  The social ecology of health promotion.  Am J Health Promot. 1996;10(4):247-251.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Israel  BA, Schulz  AJ, Parker  EA, Becker  AB.  Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health.  Annu Rev Public Health. 1998;19:173-202.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Kilo  CM.  A framework for collaborative improvement: lessons from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s Breakthrough Series.  Qual Manag Health Care. 1998;6(4):1-13.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Wagner  EH, Austin  BT, Davis  C, Hindmarsh  M, Schaefer  J, Bonomi  A.  Improving chronic illness care.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2001;20(6):64-78.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
 Food & Fun After School.http://foodandfun.org/. Accessed October 31, 2014.
22.
 Playworks.http://www.playworks.org/. Accessed October 31, 2014.
23.
 SPARK.http://www.sparkpe.org/. Accessed January 16, 2014.
24.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association.  Quality Controlled Local Climatological Data (QCLCD).http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/land-based-station-data/quality-controlled-local-climatological-data-qclcd. Accessed November 4, 2011.
25.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. 1981-2010 U.S. climate normals. http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/climatenormals/climatenormals.pl. Accessed April 11, 2012.
26.
Freedson  P, Pober  D, Janz  KF.  Calibration of accelerometer output for children.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37(11)(suppl):S523-S530.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Trost  SG, Loprinzi  PD, Moore  R, Pfeiffer  KA.  Comparison of accelerometer cut points for predicting activity intensity in youth.  Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1360-1368.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
National Cancer Institute.  SAS Programs for analyzing NHANES 2003-2004 accelerometer data.http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/tools/nhanes_pam/. Accessed February 15, 2011.
29.
Magnusson  KT, Sigurgeirsson  I, Sveinsson  T, Johannsson  E.  Assessment of a two-year school-based physical activity intervention among 7-9-year-old children.  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:138.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Tanha  T, Tornberg  AB, Wollmer  P, Dencker  M.  Head-to-head comparison between Actigraph 7164 and GT1M accelerometers in adolescents.  Clin Physiol Funct Imaging. 2013;33(2):162-165.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Corder  K, Brage  S, Ramachandran  A, Snehalatha  C, Wareham  N, Ekelund  U.  Comparison of two Actigraph models for assessing free-living physical activity in Indian adolescents.  J Sports Sci. 2007;25(14):1607-1611.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Singer  JD, Willett  JB.  Applied Longitudinal Data Analysis: Modeling Change and Event Occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003.
33.
Singer  JD.  Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models, and individual growth models.  J Educ Behav Stat. 1998;24(4):323-355.Google ScholarCrossref
34.
Fitzmaurice  GM, Laird  NM, Ware  JH.  Applied Longitudinal Analysis. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
35.
Parikh  T, Stratton  G.  Influence of intensity of physical activity on adiposity and cardiorespiratory fitness in 5-18 year olds.  Sports Med. 2011;41(6):477-488.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Fedewa  AL, Ahn  S.  The effects of physical activity and physical fitness on children’s achievement and cognitive outcomes: a meta-analysis.  Res Q Exerc Sport. 2011;82(3):521-535.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Huberty  JL, Dinkel  DM, Beets  MW.  Evaluation of GoGirlGo! a practitioner based program to improve physical activity.  BMC Public Health. 2014;14:118.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Guinhouya  BC, Samouda  H, de Beaufort  C.  Level of physical activity among children and adolescents in Europe.  Public Health. 2013;127(4):301-311.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Andersen  HB, Klinker  CD, Toftager  M, Pawlowski  CS, Schipperijna  J.  Objectively measured differences in physical activity in five types of schoolyard area.  Landsc Urban Plan. 2015;134:83-92.Google ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
February 2016

Promoting Physical Activity With the Out of School Nutrition and Physical Activity (OSNAP) Initiative: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 2currently with the Frances McClelland Institute for Children, Youth, and Families, The University of Arizona, Tucson
JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(2):155-162. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.3406
Abstract

Importance  Millions of children attend after-school programs in the United States. Increasing physical activity levels of program participants could have a broad effect on children’s health.

Objective  To test the effectiveness of the Out of School Nutrition and Physical Activity (OSNAP) Initiative in increasing children’s physical activity levels in existing after-school programs.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Cluster-randomized controlled trial with matched program pairs. Baseline data were collected September 27 through November 12, 2010, with follow-up data collected April 25 through May 27, 2011. The dates of our analysis were March 11, 2014, through August 18, 2015. The setting was 20 after-school programs in Boston, Massachusetts. All children 5 to 12 years old in participating programs were eligible for study inclusion.

Interventions  Ten programs participated in a series of three 3-hour learning collaborative workshops, with additional optional opportunities for training and technical assistance.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Change in number of minutes and bouts of moderate to vigorous physical activity, vigorous physical activity, and sedentary activity and change in total accelerometer counts between baseline and follow-up.

Results  Participants with complete data were 402 racially/ethnically diverse children, with a mean age of 7.7 years. Change in the duration of physical activity opportunities offered to children during program time did not differ between conditions (−1.2 minutes; 95% CI, −14.2 to 12.4 minutes; P = .87). Change in moderate to vigorous physical activity minutes accumulated by children during program time did not differ significantly by intervention status (−1.0; 95% CI, −3.3 to 1.3; P = .40). Total minutes per day of vigorous physical activity (3.2; 95% CI, 1.8-4.7; P < .001), vigorous physical activity minutes in bouts (4.1; 95% CI, 2.7-5.6; P < .001), and total accelerometer counts per day (16 894; 95% CI, 5101-28 686; P = .01) increased significantly during program time among intervention participants compared with control participants.

Conclusions and Relevance  Although programs participating in the OSNAP Initiative did not allot significantly more time for physical activity, they successfully made existing time more vigorously active for children receiving the intervention.

Trial Registration  clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01396473

×